Mike Gold wrote:
> funcs2 = []
> for j in 1..5
> funcs2 << lambda { j }
> end
> p funcs2.map { |f| f.call } # => [5, 5, 5, 5, 5]
>
> I prefer to make the new binding scope of a block visually obvious,
> therefore I always use {}. do/end tricks me into thinking it belongs to
> the same category as for/end or while/end or if/end, but it's quite
> different (above).
>
> Also, I like one rule better than two rules.
Curiously, Ruby departs with 40 years of Structural Programming tradition - the
statement groups controlled by if-end, and their ilk, do _not_ introduce a new
variable scope, while the statement groups inside true blocks _do_ introduce
scoped variables.
Furtherless, the region inside a block _might_ be someone else's scope! Rails's
render :update do ... end does this to us. Principle of Most Surprise applies.
So making dangerous things like blocks look ugly is a good way to help us
respect them!
--
Phlip